I'm still not understanding why MS didn't offer the always online as an additional option for those that are happy to do it. I mean offline for those that have no interest and online all the time for those of us that are happy with it, especially from the digital side. Then monitor the take and make special offers for the digital side just like Steam to attract more people rather than just saying here suck it up. I mean Steam at teh start stunk as well and most games were still disc based, don't run before you can walk springs to mind.

I'm still not understanding why MS didn't offer the always online as an additional option for those that are happy to do it. I mean offline for those that have no interest and online all the time for those of us that are happy with it, especially from the digital side. Then monitor the take and make special offers for the digital side just like Steam to attract more people rather than just saying here suck it up. I mean Steam at teh start stunk as well and most games were still disc based, don't run before you can walk springs to mind.

I imagine you can keep it online for as long as you want

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

Yeah but the whole family thing and all the other stuff they were spouting about needing to be online for, they could still offer all that to those who are happy with it and liek Steam it would gradually come to be excepted

While I agree a Steam-like service on consoles is inevitable, I don't think comparing Steam to Xbox DRM is apples to apples.

For starters, PCs have traditionally been online since the early 90s, and consoles made the jump about a decade later. There's a long history of consoles being offline units, whereas the PC - being a multi-function device - pretty much stayed connected once Internet connectivity became widely available. In other words, in the past decade, offline consoles are common, but an offline PC is almost unheard of. The point being, consumer acceptance of "always on" was much more mature with PCs than consoles when Steam came out.

I'd also argue the market between PC and console games was very different. Console games have always had a robust used game market. PC games have not. Because of this, there has traditionally been a incentive in the console realm to have physical media for reselling, whereas in the PC realm that incentive is not nearly as strong.

Finally there's piracy, which has always been much more rampant among PC games. Publishers needed DRM, but had a strong incentive to give value to the customer in exchange (otherwise they'd just continue to pirate). This added value came in the form of cheaper games, community and social features, automatic updating, a cloud-based library, and more. Console game piracy is not nearly on the same level (due to the difficulty in having to mod hardware), so the incentive to give customers more value is simply not there.

In short, a lot of factors converged to make Steam a success. These factors don't yet exist in the same quantities on the console side to make online DRM a success - hence all the pushback. I think we will get there eventually, but it needs to arise out of natural market forces and not because Microsoft says so.

While I agree a Steam-like service on consoles is inevitable, I don't think comparing Steam to Xbox DRM is apples to apples.

For starters, PCs have traditionally been online since the early 90s, and consoles made the jump about a decade later. There's a long history of consoles being offline units, whereas the PC - being a multi-function device - pretty much stayed connected once Internet connectivity became widely available. In other words, in the past decade, offline consoles are common, but an offline PC is almost unheard of. The point being, consumer acceptance of "always on" was much more mature with PCs than consoles when Steam came out.

I'd also argue the market between PC and console games was very different. Console games have always had a robust used game market. PC games have not. Because of this, there has traditionally been a incentive in the console realm to have physical media for reselling, whereas in the PC realm that incentive is not nearly as strong.

Finally there's piracy, which has always been much more rampant among PC games. Publishers needed DRM, but had a strong incentive to give value to the customer in exchange (otherwise they'd just continue to pirate). This added value came in the form of cheaper games, community and social features, automatic updating, a cloud-based library, and more. Console game piracy is not nearly on the same level (due to the difficulty in having to mod hardware), so the incentive to give customers more value is simply not there.

In short, a lot of factors converged to make Steam a success. These factors don't yet exist in the same quantities on the console side to make online DRM a success - hence all the pushback. I think we will get there eventually, but it needs to arise out of natural market forces and not because Microsoft says so.

Also, I don't remember being given an opportunity to fight back against Steam as a consumer. I remember vividly suddenly losing the ability to resell my PC games and getting upset about it. Steam came soon after. Result on this consumer? I switched to consoles for the most part, and only bought PC games where it made more sense (MMOs, etc). The entire reason I switched to console from PC was to be able to resell my games.

So here we are in the age of PS3 and 360. duncan's averages:

1) PC Games are one every several months except indie titles and extremely heavy discounted titles.2. Console games are several per month, funded by selling titles I have already played through or decided I'm not going to finish.

This is almost mirror of what I was doing before I realized I could no longer sell my PC games.

I'm still not understanding why MS didn't offer the always online as an additional option for those that are happy to do it. I mean offline for those that have no interest and online all the time for those of us that are happy with it, especially from the digital side. Then monitor the take and make special offers for the digital side just like Steam to attract more people rather than just saying here suck it up. I mean Steam at teh start stunk as well and most games were still disc based, don't run before you can walk springs to mind.

because the whole point was that if it's required, then every single xbox game can be designed as if that's guaranteed. It's similar to how having a 360 with no HDD available meant that games had to be designed to work with or without one which held back the features of certain games. Once you have an option available missing a feature, developers will cater to the lowest common denominator of features to avoid missing customers. Same reason that the Kinect is now on every model. They release one model without it, and all of a sudden developers will shun making stuff with Kinect features. Developers can still ignore the Kinect or internet connectivity, but they aren't being forced to. More people 'win' in this scenario, but people are being stubborn.

I'm still not understanding why MS didn't offer the always online as an additional option for those that are happy to do it. I mean offline for those that have no interest and online all the time for those of us that are happy with it, especially from the digital side. Then monitor the take and make special offers for the digital side just like Steam to attract more people rather than just saying here suck it up. I mean Steam at teh start stunk as well and most games were still disc based, don't run before you can walk springs to mind.

because the whole point was that if it's required, then every single xbox game can be designed as if that's guaranteed. It's similar to how having a 360 with no HDD available meant that games had to be designed to work with or without one which held back the features of certain games. Once you have an option available missing a feature, developers will cater to the lowest common denominator of features to avoid missing customers. Same reason that the Kinect is now on every model. They release one model without it, and all of a sudden developers will shun making stuff with Kinect features. Developers can still ignore the Kinect or internet connectivity, but they aren't being forced to. More people 'win' in this scenario, but people are being stubborn.

The whole fact they could turn it off that easily means they can turn it back on as well. Having it for Digital purchases and encouraging that as a business offer could be made to work. As I say small steps over time become big ones, a massive stride overnight was always going to get a backlash.

While I agree a Steam-like service on consoles is inevitable, I don't think comparing Steam to Xbox DRM is apples to apples.

For starters, PCs have traditionally been online since the early 90s, and consoles made the jump about a decade later. There's a long history of consoles being offline units, whereas the PC - being a multi-function device - pretty much stayed connected once Internet connectivity became widely available. In other words, in the past decade, offline consoles are common, but an offline PC is almost unheard of. The point being, consumer acceptance of "always on" was much more mature with PCs than consoles when Steam came out.

I'd also argue the market between PC and console games was very different. Console games have always had a robust used game market. PC games have not. Because of this, there has traditionally been a incentive in the console realm to have physical media for reselling, whereas in the PC realm that incentive is not nearly as strong.

Finally there's piracy, which has always been much more rampant among PC games. Publishers needed DRM, but had a strong incentive to give value to the customer in exchange (otherwise they'd just continue to pirate). This added value came in the form of cheaper games, community and social features, automatic updating, a cloud-based library, and more. Console game piracy is not nearly on the same level (due to the difficulty in having to mod hardware), so the incentive to give customers more value is simply not there.

In short, a lot of factors converged to make Steam a success. These factors don't yet exist in the same quantities on the console side to make online DRM a success - hence all the pushback. I think we will get there eventually, but it needs to arise out of natural market forces and not because Microsoft says so.

Also, I don't remember being given an opportunity to fight back against Steam as a consumer. I remember vividly suddenly losing the ability to resell my PC games and getting upset about it. Steam came soon after. Result on this consumer? I switched to consoles for the most part, and only bought PC games where it made more sense (MMOs, etc). The entire reason I switched to console from PC was to be able to resell my games.

So here we are in the age of PS3 and 360. duncan's averages:

1) PC Games are one every several months except indie titles and extremely heavy discounted titles.2. Console games are several per month, funded by selling titles I have already played through or decided I'm not going to finish.

This is almost mirror of what I was doing before I realized I could no longer sell my PC games.

Like everything in life has good and bad points. PC at the birth of steam was on it's way regardless. Shops were not stocking the stuff, piracy was rampant, cracks were day 1 for all games.Piracy was so simple and widespread. The whole way it was working was not making much money for anyone especially stores or publishers. We moved to weird DRM like Star Force that made things worse for the consumer and did nothing for sales.

Steam in a way revitalised PC gaming (To add we already had seriel keys that meant half the time you couldnt trade in anyways). Indies are now well providied for (has taken a while) and prices in the UK are so low to be really not an issue you cannot sell them on. At some point there is a threshhold and Steam and other Digital sites have found that level. Not paying more than £17.99 for a day one release and having games hit £10-£15 within a few weeks is great. Sure I cant sell them on but even if I had could how much would they really be worth, it would be a re enactment of the $5 gamestop rip off. If you told me I could resell them but had to pay £40 for them like consoles I just have much less of an interest. I own a Wii U, 360 and PS3 but the only games I get for them are console exclusives that I really want, if it's a pc game it just doesn't ever get a look in just because of the price difference. Fifa 13 £40 pc £10. One I can trade in the other I can't.

Now if Steam hit £40 as well I would just spend less, play less or even maybe watch a bit more tv. At some point I believe you will be able to resell or trade on digital purchases, the EU will force this on them at some point but once again the value will make it negligible, I mean $1 for Alan Wakes means it's worth how much, Like everything in life it's about value to the buyer and for me I feel I get great value from my Steam service not just in the whole steam package but also in value for money.

For others things may be different but at present I am not unhappy with the service I get or the price I pay for PC gaming, the same cannot be said for the whole console service except maybe PSN+.

While I agree a Steam-like service on consoles is inevitable, I don't think comparing Steam to Xbox DRM is apples to apples.

For starters, PCs have traditionally been online since the early 90s, and consoles made the jump about a decade later. There's a long history of consoles being offline units, whereas the PC - being a multi-function device - pretty much stayed connected once Internet connectivity became widely available. In other words, in the past decade, offline consoles are common, but an offline PC is almost unheard of. The point being, consumer acceptance of "always on" was much more mature with PCs than consoles when Steam came out.

I'd also argue the market between PC and console games was very different. Console games have always had a robust used game market. PC games have not. Because of this, there has traditionally been a incentive in the console realm to have physical media for reselling, whereas in the PC realm that incentive is not nearly as strong.

Finally there's piracy, which has always been much more rampant among PC games. Publishers needed DRM, but had a strong incentive to give value to the customer in exchange (otherwise they'd just continue to pirate). This added value came in the form of cheaper games, community and social features, automatic updating, a cloud-based library, and more. Console game piracy is not nearly on the same level (due to the difficulty in having to mod hardware), so the incentive to give customers more value is simply not there.

In short, a lot of factors converged to make Steam a success. These factors don't yet exist in the same quantities on the console side to make online DRM a success - hence all the pushback. I think we will get there eventually, but it needs to arise out of natural market forces and not because Microsoft says so.

Also, I don't remember being given an opportunity to fight back against Steam as a consumer. I remember vividly suddenly losing the ability to resell my PC games and getting upset about it. Steam came soon after. Result on this consumer? I switched to consoles for the most part, and only bought PC games where it made more sense (MMOs, etc). The entire reason I switched to console from PC was to be able to resell my games.

So here we are in the age of PS3 and 360. duncan's averages:

1) PC Games are one every several months except indie titles and extremely heavy discounted titles.2. Console games are several per month, funded by selling titles I have already played through or decided I'm not going to finish.

This is almost mirror of what I was doing before I realized I could no longer sell my PC games.

Yep, I am the same way. I barely ever buy anything on the PC anymore....unless its on a Steam sale or something. The last game on the PC that I bought full price was Diablo 3. I don't even remember what the last game was before that....it was a long time ago.

Having the Xbox One go down the same road as Steam with virtually none of the upside (major sales) was just a no-go for me. Now, it's a maybe next year....depending on people's reactions to it and how it compares overall to the PS4, once it has been out a few months.

Yep, I am the same way. I barely ever buy anything on the PC anymore....unless its on a Steam sale or something. The last game on the PC that I bought full price was Diablo 3. I don't even remember what the last game was before that....it was a long time ago.

Having the Xbox One go down the same road as Steam with virtually none of the upside (major sales) was just a no-go for me. Now, it's a maybe next year....depending on people's reactions to it and how it compares overall to the PS4, once it has been out a few months.

You lost me there. Was there an announcement of no sales? I'm not saying they will, but I also don't think you get to make that assumption (yet).

From reading Mattrick's statement (and the MS employee one) it sounds like they're still moving forward with digital content for full games - its just that disk-based games (at the onset) will not qualify to be included in that model.

It really wouldn't surprise me to see that they start releasing "install only" disks at a lower price to compete with the disk license version.

It's still too early to tell, but I simply think this compromise is due to Sony not pushing in the same direction, so this is the short side of the wedge.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

I'll be waiting for a Turtle Beach headset(hopefully TB can do a PS4/XB1 dual headset),and while i wait will be using my old TBs on my TV for sound as usual(which i use for EVERYTHING)...can't be doing with going back to the one ear headset

Actually it's different in a key way, the connector, so 360 headsets can't be used. Expect to shell out another 20 for that unless you are content with using the Kinect for gamechat.

yeah, the connector is different, but the design of the headset itself is pretty much the same from what I remember. I was kind of hoping they'd get rid of the over the head bit and make it over the ear, like this:

if it doesn't come with the system I'll just use the Kinect until someone comes out with decent 5.1 or 7.1 headphones.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

There is an inherent superior value to a digital license on a PC vs a console. Once the 360 is discontinued, (which MS hasn't announced yet, but once they stop selling they will be gone quickly) all those digital purchases for the 360 are useless (once your 360 dies and you can't replace it). On the PC I can still play games that are DECADES old. Are all games 100% compatible? No, but with the openness of the PC platform, dedicated fans can usually mod the game to make it work. Not to mention a service like GOG goes through at least some effort to make the old ones work on more modern PCs. Will your XBone digital purchases work on the next XBox? Who knows?

your point is valid, but it doesn't preclude Sony's plan. Whether MSFT will find a way to stream key games has yet to be seen.

Perhaps we could all yell loud enough.

My one and only concern is for the RB content, but I think that - both - companies face two hurdles- able to support old hardware controllers,licensing for the songs on a "new" platform. RIAA ain't nobodies fool - I'm sure they have that contingency all locked up.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Yep, I am the same way. I barely ever buy anything on the PC anymore....unless its on a Steam sale or something. The last game on the PC that I bought full price was Diablo 3. I don't even remember what the last game was before that....it was a long time ago.

Having the Xbox One go down the same road as Steam with virtually none of the upside (major sales) was just a no-go for me. Now, it's a maybe next year....depending on people's reactions to it and how it compares overall to the PS4, once it has been out a few months.

You lost me there. Was there an announcement of no sales? I'm not saying they will, but I also don't think you get to make that assumption (yet).

From reading Mattrick's statement (and the MS employee one) it sounds like they're still moving forward with digital content for full games - its just that disk-based games (at the onset) will not qualify to be included in that model.

It really wouldn't surprise me to see that they start releasing "install only" disks at a lower price to compete with the disk license version.

It's still too early to tell, but I simply think this compromise is due to Sony not pushing in the same direction, so this is the short side of the wedge.

Sorry you got lost, maybe this will help find you. Looking at the current set up of PC, Xbox and PS its only the PC that has agressive pricing from the off, cheap deals on day one, massive reductions after a few months as well as weekly and daily sales across multiple retailers and etailers. A open platform with lots of choice.

There are sales for the consoles but they dont happen that often and at times the reductions are minimal. Now there could be sales like the PC but at present there is absolutely nothing to indicate that will happen and when you look at MS and Sony what you actually see a single marketplace wanting to control pricce and the service, which does not encourage market competition, price competition and Especially deep discounts.

Too me it feels like whistling in the wind to expect consoles to price and compete like the PC, if it does i'll be more than happy but until it does i am happy with the old model of buy and trade but will purchase dgital only as long as the price is right and at present unlike Steam that is not there.

Your argument lacks any real info, since, you know, there is none. You're comparing a digital-only distribution model where costs are drastically different on PC, where the digital market has matured and is competing with itself (Steam, GMG, Origin, MS Store, GOG, etc...). To not expect similar as time passes in the console world seems near-sighted.

It's been covered above - deals aren't where Steam started - but it's sure given them a leg up since, and it's plainly obvious. Since:

A) PSN offers free gamesB) MS is competing with SonyC) both may end up competing with Ouya / Steam Box

They would be stupid not to add value in terms of sales and deals (which they do now for their gold members and have been doing so for at least all of 2013).

Tricky thing is, both Sony and MS are going to have relatively low product count in their next-gen stores, given that the last-gen games won't work (for now, according to info released).

I can tell you that MS is giving away Project Spark - it's a free game with every console, as well as Killer Instinct (freemium - you get one character free and can buy others).

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Your argument lacks any real info, since, you know, there is none. You're comparing a digital-only distribution model where costs are drastically different on PC, where the digital market has matured and is competing with itself (Steam, GMG, Origin, MS Store, GOG, etc...). To not expect similar as time passes in the console world seems near-sighted.

Jesus. Just say "I think that the prices between the two markets will come more in line as Sony and MS move more toward digital distribution."

Holy shit, it's a way to state your opinion without assing up the thread.

Your argument lacks any real info, since, you know, there is none. You're comparing a digital-only distribution model where costs are drastically different on PC, where the digital market has matured and is competing with itself (Steam, GMG, Origin, MS Store, GOG, etc...). To not expect similar as time passes in the console world seems near-sighted.

Jesus. Just say "I think that the prices between the two markets will come more in line as Sony and MS move more toward digital distribution."

Holy shit, it's a way to state your opinion without assing up the thread.

agreed on all accounts. I dont' see why consoles wouldn't eventually end up having the same kind of deals as PC once things settled in on digital. Seems odd to think they wouldn't actually. Steam didn't have all of these amazing sales right off the bat either.

last week you may of heard Phil Fish of Polytron announcing that Fez 2 will NOT appear on Xbox One due to Microsoft's stance on self publishing,Fish said:

Quote

"Whether or not I would develop for it comes down to how the platform holder treats me. With Microsoft they've made it painfully clear they don't want my ilk on their platform,"

nice and to the point

Anyway,there is a new rumour in town peeeooooww(that was meant to be the sound of a gun going off in the Wild West,didn't really work did it? )yeah..so,...and that rumour is that Microsoft may change their mind about self publishing360a.org

Quote

Microsoft may be preparing for another turn-around, this time in regards to self-publishing.

When the Xbox One was announced, Microsoft said that it would not allow developers to publish their own games on the console, a move which disappointed many independent studios. As a result, the developers of exciting titles like DayZ and Fez II responded by saying they would not bring their games to Xbox One.

However, if the latest rumours are to be believed, that may be about to change.

This Wednesday, Microsoft will be holding its Build Conference in San Francisco. It’s an annual shindig aimed at software developers working with the company’s tech. And it’s here that some are speculating a second change of policy in as many weeks may take place.

Internet sleuth Superannuation tweeted last night, “Some people seem to think Microsoft will announce some self-publishing/indie Xbox One stuff this week at their Build Developer Conference.”

Meanwhile, on the same subject, Markus “Notch” Persson tweeted “I know something about this, but I’m not allowed to say. “ The tweet has since been deleted.

Adding a little weight to this speculation is the fact that when invitations were sent out pre-E3 2013, gaming press were assured the event was PC and mobile only. However, now the event has expanded to encompass the Xbox platforms.

It’s worth re-stating that this is currently all speculation. Indeed, if it wasn’t for Notch’s deleted tweet and Microsoft’s recent dramatic turnaround regarding DRM on Xbox One, we wouldn’t have given it much weight.

Fingers crossed. A larger selection of games for Xbox One is always good news.

so,If true,just 'lower the Price' and get rid of that 'need to be connected Kinect'..and we'll have the console of our dreams